5 ms·

Or maybe they are just more visionary and resist the detrimental decline of the environmental commons spiral that comes with a private car ownership based mobil

Or maybe they are just more visionary and resist the detrimental decline of the environmental commons spiral that comes with a private car ownership based mobility model.

grumpydba 7y ago
It's all about the density of this state/city which makes individual car ownership pretty impractical. I don't think teslas are needed in Singapore, but it doesn't mean they are not needed elsewhere. I think SGP's PM is a bit too focused on his country to judge that.
- graeme 7y ago
  Wouldn't it be the other way around? Singapore got built dense because they had anti-car attitudes. Singapore has grown 4x since 1960. A lot of infrastructure and housing got built in that time. American cities in the era built themselves into a corner with auto-sprawl, Singapore didn't.
  - clouddrover 7y ago
    > Singapore got built dense because they had anti-car attitudes. No. Singapore doesn't have enough land to do anything other than high-density building.
    - mtts 7y ago
      They could have built it much less dense than they did. It’s a very green city. It’s also hard to imagine a place with better public transportation.
      - clouddrover 7y ago
        > They could have built it much less dense than they did. Only if they don't want any economic future. You're not thinking long term.
    - graeme 7y ago
      You could say the same about San Francisco, and yet it’s full of single family homes, outside of a very small core which is dense. The result is fewer people than would otherwise have lived in SF. The same could have happened in Singapore, they’d just be a country with a smaller population.
      - clouddrover 7y ago
        Your claim that high-density housing creates a higher population is exactly backwards. A high population in a small geographic area is what creates the necessity of high-density housing. The population of Singapore even 70 years ago was higher than San Francisco county's population is today. San Francisco also has a nation's worth of external support, Singapore only has its trade deals. I think Singaporeans know how to run Singapore better than you do.
        graeme 7y ago
        ....I was saying Singapore displayed foresight and ran themselves well. My point was that American cities have generally lacked such foresight. It would have been a mistake for Singapore to build things around the car, and it has been a mistake for San Francisco to use restrictive zoning and car central planning. In fairness, SF proper is dense, but it's tiny. The surrounding area is not dense. >A high population in a small geographic area is what creates the necessity of high-density housing. American cities pre-car were generally as dense as European cities. They chose the car intensive route post war. Europe initially went down that path, then pulled back. And Singapore was wise enough not to pursue it. Their geography surely focussed minds a bit, but they could have made bad choices rather than good ones. Many cities have.
        clouddrover 7y ago
        > American cities pre-car were generally as dense as European cities. Nope. Even after a massive population increase in the last ten years of the 19th century, New York was still only half as populous as London in 1900: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>Or maybe they are just more visionary and resist the detrimental decline of the environmental Have you been to Singapore? Because if you have and think they are some green wonderland because they require an expensive purchase permit for a car and you need to get rid of it after 5 or 8 years is because they’re “earthy”, you are sadly mistaken. It’s 99% population control, 1% environment. The city/state is amazing; but not always in the good way. I recommend you visit. Green is one thing they are not. They talks good game about biomass (burning trash) and solar, but the entire country glows at night, it earns its name as The Air-Conditioned City.
lunchables 7y ago
Nope, it was just due to congestion. You have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get a certificate that allows you to buy a car in Singapore.
- asdff 7y ago
  This needs to happen in nyc.

Or maybe they are just more visionary and resist the detrimental decline of the environmental commons spiral that comes with a private car ownership based mobility model.

grumpydba 7y ago

It's all about the density of this state/city which makes individual car ownership pretty impractical. I don't think teslas are needed in Singapore, but it doesn't mean they are not needed elsewhere. I think SGP's PM is a bit too focused on his country to judge that.

graeme 7y ago
Wouldn't it be the other way around? Singapore got built dense because they had anti-car attitudes. Singapore has grown 4x since 1960. A lot of infrastructure and housing got built in that time. American cities in the era built themselves into a corner with auto-sprawl, Singapore didn't.
- clouddrover 7y ago
  > Singapore got built dense because they had anti-car attitudes. No. Singapore doesn't have enough land to do anything other than high-density building.
  - mtts 7y ago
    They could have built it much less dense than they did. It’s a very green city. It’s also hard to imagine a place with better public transportation.
    - clouddrover 7y ago
      > They could have built it much less dense than they did. Only if they don't want any economic future. You're not thinking long term.
  - graeme 7y ago
    You could say the same about San Francisco, and yet it’s full of single family homes, outside of a very small core which is dense. The result is fewer people than would otherwise have lived in SF. The same could have happened in Singapore, they’d just be a country with a smaller population.
    - clouddrover 7y ago
      Your claim that high-density housing creates a higher population is exactly backwards. A high population in a small geographic area is what creates the necessity of high-density housing. The population of Singapore even 70 years ago was higher than San Francisco county's population is today. San Francisco also has a nation's worth of external support, Singapore only has its trade deals. I think Singaporeans know how to run Singapore better than you do.
      - graeme 7y ago
        ....I was saying Singapore displayed foresight and ran themselves well. My point was that American cities have generally lacked such foresight. It would have been a mistake for Singapore to build things around the car, and it has been a mistake for San Francisco to use restrictive zoning and car central planning. In fairness, SF proper is dense, but it's tiny. The surrounding area is not dense. >A high population in a small geographic area is what creates the necessity of high-density housing. American cities pre-car were generally as dense as European cities. They chose the car intensive route post war. Europe initially went down that path, then pulled back. And Singapore was wise enough not to pursue it. Their geography surely focussed minds a bit, but they could have made bad choices rather than good ones. Many cities have.
        clouddrover 7y ago
        > American cities pre-car were generally as dense as European cities. Nope. Even after a massive population increase in the last ten years of the 19th century, New York was still only half as populous as London in 1900: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

>Or maybe they are just more visionary and resist the detrimental decline of the environmental Have you been to Singapore? Because if you have and think they are some green wonderland because they require an expensive purchase permit for a car and you need to get rid of it after 5 or 8 years is because they’re “earthy”, you are sadly mistaken. It’s 99% population control, 1% environment. The city/state is amazing; but not always in the good way. I recommend you visit. Green is one thing they are not. They talks good game about biomass (burning trash) and solar, but the entire country glows at night, it earns its name as The Air-Conditioned City.

lunchables 7y ago

Nope, it was just due to congestion. You have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get a certificate that allows you to buy a car in Singapore.

asdff 7y ago
This needs to happen in nyc.